ORDER D. P. S. Chauhan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The applicant's learned counsel submitted that a compromise decree under Order 23, Rule 3 C. P. C. was passed by the Court below. That compromise was signed by both the parties, and for the compromise so filed in the court, the statements of both the parties were also recorded by the Court before making the compromise as rule of the Court. 3. The suit related to the ejectment and so far as the status between the parties is concerned, that is not in dispute. The present applicant in revision is the tenant and the other party is landlord. Title is not in dispute. The prayer in the suit was for the ejectment of the tenant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the requirement of' law has not been satisfied as the Court has not recorded its satisfaction regarding the fact that ground u/s 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was attracted or not. 5. It was not the dispute before the Court below. The parties had filed their compromise which was duly verified in the Court and now the tenant has turned round and filed an objection. This is a dishonest intention. The dishonesty not be permitted by the Court. 6. So far as the requirement of Order XXIII Rule 3 are concerned, they do not come in the way. The first part of Rule 3 of Order XXIII is that "where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise (in writing and signed by the parties)". The suit was for ejectment of the tenant by the landlord and what is required to be satisfied by this part of the provision was that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by and lawful agreement or compromise. It is not the case here that the suit has not been adjusted by any compromise or by any lawful agreement. The word "adjusted" means the parties have arrived at a compromise, not reserved to be relief claimed in the suit. 7. In view of the above, I find no error in the impugned order. 8. It is not the case here that the suit has not been adjusted by any compromise or by any lawful agreement. The word "adjusted" means the parties have arrived at a compromise, not reserved to be relief claimed in the suit. 7. In view of the above, I find no error in the impugned order. 8. However, the second part of this Rule may also be discussed and discussion is only for the satisfaction for the learned counsel for the applicant, which says that "where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded". Here the position is entirely different and the defendant has to satisfy the plaintiff in respect of the subject-matter of the suit and thereafter the Court has to order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded. This is therefore not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. In view of the above, I find no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order warranting inference u/s 115 C. P. C. Revision is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.